1998 (10) TMI 530 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in the conduct of trial violating the right to a speedy trial.
2. Responsibility for the delay in the prosecution process.
3. Guidelines for ensuring the right to a speedy trial.

Summary:

1. Delay in the Conduct of Trial Violating the Right to a Speedy Trial:
The petitioner was charged with an offence u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The case saw significant delays, with charges framed only on 4.3.1993 and only three witnesses examined by 1.6.1995. The petitioner argued that the delay of over 13 years violated his right to a speedy trial. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of systemic delays due to the limited number of Special Courts.

2. Responsibility for the Delay in the Prosecution Process:
The Special Judge's report highlighted that the prosecution had failed to produce witnesses despite 36 adjournments. The Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., attributed the delay to the accused's dilatory tactics and the heavy workload of the Special Judge. The petitioner refuted these claims, stating that the prosecution failed to produce documents on 48 occasions and witnesses on 46 occasions.

3. Guidelines for Ensuring the Right to a Speedy Trial:
The Supreme Court reiterated the right to a speedy trial as implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court referenced several precedents, including Hussainara Khatoon, State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shan, and Abdul Rehman Antulay, emphasizing that undue delay could impair the accused's ability to defend themselves. The Court laid down additional guidelines to supplement those in Antulay's case:
- For offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding seven years, the court shall close prosecution evidence after two years from the date of recording the plea.
- If the accused has been in jail for at least half the maximum period of punishment, they shall be released on bail.
- For offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years, the court shall close prosecution evidence after three years unless exceptional reasons justify further time.
- Delays attributable to the accused's conduct will not obligate the court to close prosecution evidence within the specified periods.
- Time during which the trial is stayed by court orders or law shall be excluded from the period for closing prosecution evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the Special Judge, C.B.I., South Bihar, Patna to pass appropriate orders in line with this judgment. Additionally, the State of Bihar was directed to constitute at least five Special Courts within three months to handle cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appeal was allowed accordingly.